Hi Simon, Thanks for the explanation.
It did not occur to me that SHA-0 was being used, since it was withdrawn as a standard circa early 90's, after significant flaws were identified. Apple (and others) either have or are moving away from SHA-1 to SHA-2, at least for TLS/PKI security: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207459 <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207459> recognizing the differences between session specific TLS/PKI trust uses and longer term file integrity checking. I know Linus is more "relaxed" regarding SHA-1 and the implications for Git, or at least was last year, albeit indicating a path away from it in time. I guess the question boils down to, if we are going to provide hashes of the files under the premise that it should offer a high level of comfort to useRs that the file has not been modified/replaced since generation, presuming that the published hash value itself was not altered, I would put forth for further discussion, moving to SHA-2 and away from both MD5 and SHA-1 (certainly moving away from SHA-0), depending upon a more broad assessment of the implications of doing so. Thanks! Marc > On Apr 25, 2018, at 2:54 PM, Simon Urbanek <simon.urba...@r-project.org> > wrote: > > Marc, > > thanks, the issue is: > > hagal:R-3.5.0$ openssl sha R-3.5.0-el-capitan-signed.pkg > SHA(R-3.5.0-el-capitan-signed.pkg)= 9f5f3365afee54d3fe3148a60c1405955916f076 > > hagal:R-3.5.0$ openssl sha1 R-3.5.0-el-capitan-signed.pkg > SHA1(R-3.5.0-el-capitan-signed.pkg)= 6e90d38892bb366630ae30c223a898e8af84dff7 > > so either we change the label to SHA (or SHA-0?) or change the checksum. In > the root we actually provide both, even if that may or may not be relevant. > For now I did the latter in the index.html. > > Cheers, > Simon > > > > > >> On Apr 25, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Marc Schwartz <marc_schwa...@me.com> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> Last month: >> >> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-mac/2018-March/012691.html >> >> there was a report that the SHA-1 hash of the R-3.4.4.pkg, as listed on >> CRAN, was not correct, even though the MD5 hash and the digital signature >> appeared to be correct. >> >> The same phenomenon is the case with R-3.5.0.pkg. >> >> The MD5 hash on CRAN is: >> >> MD5-hash: 414029c9c9f706d3d04baa887ccffbc4 >> >> and I get: >> >> md5 R-3.5.0.pkg >> MD5 (R-3.5.0.pkg) = 414029c9c9f706d3d04baa887ccffbc4 >> >> from the CLI on my Mac. >> >> However, the SHA-1 hash on CRAN is: >> >> SHA-hash: 9f5f3365afee54d3fe3148a60c1405955916f076 >> >> and I get: >> >> shasum R-3.5.0.pkg >> 6e90d38892bb366630ae30c223a898e8af84dff7 R-3.5.0.pkg >> >> from the CLI on my Mac. >> >> It would seem that there is a lingering issue with the generation of the >> SHA-1 hash value on CRAN. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Marc Schwartz >> >> _______________________________________________ >> R-SIG-Mac mailing list >> R-SIG-Mac@r-project.org >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] _______________________________________________ R-SIG-Mac mailing list R-SIG-Mac@r-project.org https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac
